CBS newsman Bob Schieffer will host the third debate tonight between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

The first two debates prompted outrage from pro-life conservatives over their bias — from biased questions and Romney twice having less time to talk during the debate to the moderator interrupting Romney more or letting Obama get the last word in more often.

Voters expecting a more fair and impartial debate this time around will be sorely disappointed — although it might be for the better that the debate is primarily expected to be focused on foreign policy issues. Schieffer made it clear earlier this year that he thinks, when it comes to social issues, that Republicans are too focused on pro-life topics.

In February, on Sunday mornings Face the Nation, he pressed Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie over how Republicans have supposedly moved too far to the right to win. Later, in an interview with Marylands Democratic Governor, Martin OMalley, Schieffer claimed we’ve spent the last couple of weeks here talking about running against birth control for goodness sake — ignoring how the media attacked pro-lifers repeated with the War on Women mantra.

He said: “We’ve spent the last couple of weeks here talking about running against birth control for goodness sake. I mean, I admit, I mean, I believe the President made a serious political mistake when he tried to say to the Catholic Church, you have to buy birth control pills for the folks that work in your hospitals and your schools and so forth. But he backed away from that. And yet, the Republicans keep pushing. They say thats not enough. That you’ve got to be totally against the birth control.”

Of course, Schieffer was unable to identify any candidate who is saying you’ve got to be totally against the birth control.

Then with OMalley, he repeated the claim Obama did back away on the birth control mandate, and proceeded to again express bewilderment thats not good enough for Republicans: But is that going to be an issue, this whole idea of birth control, is that going to be an issue in this campaign?

Next, Schieffer cued up OMalley to denounce Republicans as extremists: Well do you think its good for the President if Republicans try to concentrate on social issues?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if a lady opts for a recreational abortion, she has decided to become a murderer and must accept all of the self inflicted consequences INCLUDING THE INVOICE. I do not advocate she should go to prison as I believe she will be judged by the only authority at the end of her life here on earth. BUT do not make it the law of the land that I SHOULD PAY for her poor decisions.

Yeah, who cares about social issues? I mean who cares about morality...especially in the White House? If the president wants to have sex orgies in the Oval Office, it’s none of our business. We had a recent president who did do that. And we had a Dem congressman (guess who?) who had a friend who ran a homosexual prositution ring out of his, the congressman’s, apartment. Yeah, who cares about morality? That’s just for those nutty Republicans. C’mon, let’s do drugs in public and murder children even after they’re born. I mean plants and tree are more important than humans according to many libs. So say those “moral” liberals. (smirk)

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics."

The concluding statement of his essay is quite interesting also:

"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

Unthinking reproduction made sense when the world population was small, that is no longer the case. I do not understand why conservatives would be against planning and spacing of children when they have no desire to pay for the social services needed by the more irresponsible elements of the population. Recent studies in St. Louis of 9,000 many lower income showed that when free birth control was provided that teen pregnancy and abortion rates dropped by around 80%. The preferred choice was long term prevention like IUDs, and I presume Norplant (although that was not stated).

I apologize for Texas that Schieffer was born in this state. He has become an embarassment for the state. He is, however, a songwriter....but I have never heard any of his songs. I did hear Imus say something about Billy Joe Schaffer had taken a look at some of his songwritings. But, songwriter or not, that does not excuse his liberalism.

I was just saying the other day, you can’t cut down your own tree in Claremont, California. Heck, you can’t trim the branches off, without getting into trouble. But you can abort/kill your child. Don’t dare harm a Condor, Eagle, or Whale though!

17
posted on 10/22/2012 2:22:02 PM PDT
by buffyt
(Abortion is murder. It is not a Choice - It is a Child.)

Why would this be of any concern given it’s had no positive net impact for Bobo, other than maybe to keep his choom hareem from abandoning him altogether....But those certainly aren’t Romney votes, and a big chunk of them won’t be getting off their lardasses to vote this time around anyway...

I think he's always trying to equate birth control with abortion and get the left fired up. There's a big difference, for all but the insane that use abortion as their form of birth control.

And Obama accuses Republicans of “a war on women”. Yes, I know, women get pregnant. But Obama never talks about the male’s responsibility. You can get a birth control Rx for $9.00 a month. A condom a day cost more then that, but it's not covered in Obamacare (and it shouldn't be) because it won't win him any votes! It's all about him winning, nothing about health care or contraception. And the pill doesn't protect against disease.

Why is it when conservatives simply don’t want to have government pay for something that we are suddenly against it? It’s as if some people are denied something because they simply have to pay for it. They can buy all the birth control they want but I do not wish to pay for it nor do I want businesses and churches being required to “cover it” which is code for the government paying for it.

At this rate we may even get government produced condoms tested out by barney frank. Can you imagine? Then if they break some idiot would sue the government.

I am not suggesting removing anyone, I am suggesting that people be allowed/encouraged? to reproduce responsibly and in proportion to ability to care for your own children rather than ask the state to do so. I chose to produce 2 children, one of whom is now serving in Afghanistan. Perhaps you think it would serve me right if he gets killed there??

“And how does this question have anything to do with tonight’s topic on foreign policy, Bob?

Given the unfolding debacle in the middle east and 2000 American soldiers dead in afghanistan, don’t the American people deserve to hear a debate about where this country’s foreign policy has been and where it is going? Next question...”

One reason the insurance companies have not raised heck about providing free contraceptive services, is that they will save money on reduced numbers of pregnancies and childhood illness. So, what you should complain about is if they do not lower your insurance costs because of the money they are saving. I am not aware of religious insurance companies. Non religious employees at a religiously oriented place served by a non religious insurance company are not forcing that place to pay for contraception either.

“...to reproduce responsibly and in proportion to ability to care for your own children”

glee, you are all over the board. Just where have you been the last 30 years? Repubs and Conservatives have been touting this for a long time, to no avail. Certain segments of society are NOT responsible and could care less about their “ability”. Do you get it yet!?

41
posted on 10/22/2012 3:00:13 PM PDT
by SgtHooper
(The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)

They have been all over the news. Thay have LAWSUITS pending, for goodness’ sake. Maybe you should take a little of the time you spend being stubborn and clueless, and apply it towards keeping current.

43
posted on 10/22/2012 3:02:14 PM PDT
by Nervous Tick
("You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.